1. The Field of the Invention
The present invention generally relates to an oral hygiene device and, in particular, to a tongue cleaning device that provides for convenient and effective cleaning of the tongue, without causing the user to gag or choke.
2. Description of Related Art
Proper care of a person's mouth or oral cavity is very important for good oral hygiene. Generally, individuals who desire good oral hygiene brush and floss their teeth on a consistent basis, but they frequently neglect to clean their tongue. The tongue is important to clean because bacteria, food and other foreign matter can buildup on the dorsum or upper surface of the tongue. In order to have good oral hygiene, these materials need to be carefully removed from the outer surface of the tongue.
The tongue, however, is not easy to clean because it is an irregularly shaped, mobile mass of striated muscles that can rapidly change its shape and configuration. Additionally, the tongue is difficult to clean because it has a rough, nonuniform outer surface and it is covered with mucous membrane. In greater detail, the tongue includes a front or anterior portion that constitutes about two-thirds of the body of the tongue. This front portion of the tongue, which includes the apex or tip, is generally positioned horizontally in the mouth and it is thickly covered with various types of papillae. The papillae project outwardly from the upper surface of the tongue to create the roughened surface. The rear or posterior portion of the tongue, located near the throat, typically has a more nodular or bossed surface and it is covered with numerous muciparous glands and lymph follicles. The tongue also includes about 5,000 to 10,000 taste buds that are scattered over the upper and side surfaces of the tongue. These different structures and surfaces create numerous mounds, ridges, peaks, protrusions, furrows, grooves and folds of various shapes and sizes. This lack of evenness makes cleaning the tongue very difficult because food particles and other debris often become trapped or encrusted in these various nonuniform surfaces.
It is known to use conventional toothbrushes to clean the tongue. The long bristles of conventional toothbrushes, however, are designed to clean the hard outer surfaces of the teeth and the long bristles are pliable to minimize abrasiveness to the enamel surfaces of the teeth. The long bristles of conventional toothbrushes are also designed to create toothpaste lather, contact the gums, reach below the gingival tissue and not damage the teeth or surrounding gingival tissue. Additionally, the long bristles allow the toothbrush to reach into the crevices between and around teeth, while providing a safe margin between the tips of the bristles and the hard plastic base of the toothbrush. Further, conventional toothbrushes often have an elongated head with a narrow width to fit into the constricted areas of the mouth, such as between the teeth and the cheek. Accordingly, conventional toothbrushes have a narrow width and a high profile measured from the tips of the bristles to the outer surface of the head of the toothbrush.
The long bristles of conventional toothbrushes, however, are not suitable to reach and clean the bottom surfaces of the various folds, grooves and ridges in the tongue because the bristles are not sufficiently rigid. Additionally, the long bristles and relatively thick body of the toothbrush often touch the pharynx, soft palate or posterior portion of the mouth and this frequently elicits a “gagging” or “choking” response by the user. Further, while the generally slender configuration of a conventional toothbrush allows it to fit into the narrow spaces between teeth and cheek, it prevents the toothbrush from quickly or efficiently cleaning the tongue because of its small contact area. Accordingly, conventional toothbrushes are generally unsuitable for cleaning the tongue.
In response to the need for brushes and other devices specifically designed for cleaning the tongue, various designs have been developed as disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,951,578 issued to Jensen, U.S. Pat. No. 5,944,519 issued to Griffiths, U.S. Pat. No. 5,842,247 issued to Decesare, U.S. Pat. No. 5,735,864 issued to Heisinger, Jr., U.S. Pat. No. 5,749,116 issued to Wieder et al., U.S. Pat. No. 5,735,864 issued to Heisinger, Jr., U.S. Pat. No. 5,613,262 issued to Choy-Maldonado, U.S. Pat. No. 4,079,478 issued to Andrews, U.S. Pat. No. 3,943,592 issued to Bhaskar et al., U.S. Design Pat. No. 243,422 issued to Varga, U.S. Design Pat. No. 405,272 issued to Khalaj et al., U.S. Design Pat. No. 400,357 issued to Crosson, U.S. Design Pat. No. 388,616 issued to Wieder et al., U.S. Design Pat. No. 332,352 issued to Caldwell et al., U.S. Design Pat. No. 309,528 issued to Valenti, and U.S. Design Pat. No. 243,422 issued to Varga.
One design approach described in several of these patents is to use the same type of clusters of bristles used with conventional toothbrushes which have been shortened to minimize the occurrence of the gag reflex. Such fibers are typically made from nylon. Examples of such designs are disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,842,247 issued to Decesare U.S. Pat. No. 5,749,116 issued to Wieder et al., U.S. Pat. No. 5,613,262 issued to Choy-Maldonado, U.S. Design Pat. No. 332,352 issued to Caldwell et al., U.S. Design Pat. No. 309,528 issued to Valenti, and U.S. Design Pat. No. 243,422 issued to Varga.
There are several problems with such brushes that utilize clusters of fibrous bristles. Since the bristles are typically made of nylon, the shortness of the bristles tends to result in insufficient flexibility. More particularly, the short bristles are too stiff and are resultingly incapable of adequately conforming to the varied surface features and contours of the tongue to optimally clean the tongue. Additionally, since the rigidity increases as the length is decreased, the length cannot be sufficiently reduced to result in a desirable vertical profile. The vertical profile includes the combined height of the bristles and the head from which the bristles extend.
As indicated above, it is desirable to reduce the vertical profile as much as possible in order to minimize the likelihood of inducing a gag reflex. The tongue brush sold by Enfresh Products LLC is an example of a tongue brush with a reduced vertical profile. These brushes have a head with clusters of fiber bristles extending from the head. Note that the brushes sold by Enfresh Products LLC are marked with Design Pat. No. 400,357 which issued to Crosson. In addition to Design Pat. No. 400,357, these tongue brushes can be viewed at www.enfresh.com. The tongue brushes marked with Design Pat. No. 400,357 have a vertical profile of about 0.4 inch or 10.16 mm. Note that the clusters of fibrous bristles of the tongue brushes, which are marked with Design Pat. No. 400,357, have a length of about 0.2 inch or 5.8 mm and are very stiff. The bristles in the brush sold by Enfresh Product LLC are relatively stiff as they are made from the same material as toothbrush bristles but are much shorter. More particularly, the bristles have a length to thickness ratio of about 40:1 while toothbrush bristles have a length to thickness ratio of about 75:1.
Another tongue brush having clusters of bristles has an even smaller vertical profile. U.S. Pat. No. 5,951,578 issued to Jensen indicates at column 4, lines 36-41 that the preferred vertical profile of the brush disclosed therein is approximately {fraction (5/16)} inch (0.3125 inch and 7.9375 mm) based on the combined thickness of the forward end 36 of the brush and the associated bristles.
One approach to achieving a reduction in the vertical profile is disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 3,943,592 issued to Bhaskar et al. Bhaskar et al. utilizes a laminate of Velcro® tape adhered onto an elongated member. As indicated at column 6, line 21 in Bhaskar et al., the resulting combined vertical profile of the tape on the elongated member is 3 mm. Bhaskar et al. indicates that this lower profile provides a significant advantage over the use of toothbrushes, which have a vertical profile of 15 mm. However, the structure used to achieve this low profile is not easily cleaned for repeated use. More particularly, the hooks of the Velcro® tape are not easily cleaned. Additionally, adhesion of the other adhesive side of the tape to wood may lead to bacterial growth that is difficult to eliminate. Accordingly, a tongue brush having a head with two parts including a laminate brush portion adhered onto a head such as that disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 3,943,592 may not be useable in a repeated manner due to the difficulty involved in cleaning it. U.S. Pat. No. 4,079,478 issued to Andrews is another laminate that presents similar difficulties in maintaining the brush in a clean condition for repeated use. Obviously retention of residual bacteria diminishes the ability of such brushes to effectively clean.
A tongue brush having clusters of fibrous bristles, such as those discussed above, can also be difficult to maintain in a clean condition. More particularly, since the bristles are held very tightly together, particularly at the base of the cluster, the cluster may not be fully clean when used again. Further, since the bristles extend into the head some portions may even be impossible to fully clean.
Another approach to tongue cleaning is disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,944,519 which issued to Griffiths. The cleaner has a compressible foam pad that has been folded onto a handle. The compressible pad is covered with fibers that have been flocked onto its surface so that the entire surface of the compressible pad can be used to clean the tongue. The compressible pad is a porous foam so that it can hold mouthwash. However, a disadvantage resulting from the porosity of the foam is that it may be difficult to adequately clean it. Another disadvantage is that the manner in which the pad is adhered to the handle causes it to have a large vertical profile.
Further, various mechanical devices to clean a person's tongue are also known. These devices are generally complex mechanical systems that agitate the bristles of the brush. These complex devices, however, are expensive, prone to breaking and difficult to control.